What's going on with this cover up of the attack on the USA embassy in Libya? Last night I watched some of the Presidential debate and this topic came up. If Obama was correct in saying that on Day 1 he said it was a terrorist attack, why did his UN ambassador say in five different national interviews that it was an impromptu riot caused by an anti-Islamic YouTube video that was responsible and who put her up to it? If Obama saw this as a terrorist attack from the very beginning, why did the president himself blame it on a video six times during a UN speech? Why has he made the statement so many times, as has Hillary Clinton, as has Obama's Press Secretary Jay Carney, as have others? The attack was viewed by the State Dept. live as it occurred and yet there seems to be very different versions of the events.
This attack occurred on the anniversary of 9/11 and the embassy had previously made repeated calls for better security. Our embassy in Paris has better protection than the embassy in Libya. Knowing there was an active Al Qaeda cell in Benghazi the State Dept. still felt comfortable leaving the security and protection of the embassy to 20 local Libyan guards hired by a small British security firm.
Okay, we're 20 days from a Presidential election that has been running too close to call in many cases. Was there fear from the Obama administration that the truth would hurt his chances at the polls? Did they really believe they could cover all of this up? I listened to a BBC interview with the President of Libya a few short days after the attack in which he stated there was no riot, just a well planned terrorist attack.
If the Obama loving left leaning national media doesn't start asking questions soon, they also will be guilty of enabling a massive cover-up. There are four people dead and I think we deserve better from our government than a series of poorly orchestrated lies.
Don

Sounds rather dodgy BB.

Only 20 days out from the election...I wonder who is touting for the "Islamic" vote in the US?

Political spin...
Mrs. Clinton is taking responsibilty to take the heat off Obama and Obama said it was a riot that caused terror. He never said it was a terrorist attack - it looks bad on his resume.
He did appologize to Libya for the murder of Americans...... ???!!!

O was saying it wasn't determined 2 weeks after event. I'm surprised his nose isn't longer than it is tall.

whats this I hear about a plot to bomb federal bank??? or was that just a vote making hoax too???

Romney is technically right, Obama and his administration didn't call it a terrorist attack for a couple weeks, but rioting over a film was blamed.

In reality, even the Libyans said rather quickly that it was too well coordinated to be a "spur of the moment" attack due to the film, and that it more then likely was due to the anniversary of 9/11. Before the Administration admitted that.

Still, in the end, I hate to say it but Romney or Obama is picking who is the second best. Both of their plans sound nice, but you can sprinkle sugar all over something and it doesn't change the fact they both smell.

Dimitri

Dimitri wrote:

Romney is technically right, Obama and his administration didn't call it a terrorist attack for a couple weeks

Transcripts disagree with you.

Eremius wrote:

Transcripts disagree with you.

Read the transcript ...

Quote::

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.

Quote::

The United States condemns, in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.

Quote::

And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Quote::

But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.

Quote::

The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts. Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya.

Quote::

Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans.

Quote::

We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.

Quote::

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.

The ONLY ONE time he mentions "terror" is when he gives his little 3 paragraph speech about the 9/11 memorials being carried out and that

Quote::

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourn with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi. As Americans let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those, both civilian and military, who represent us around the globe. No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

But he NEVER directly called these attacks a act of terror. And notice how even in this little part about 9/11 he still refused to call these attacks a act of terror directly?

In addition to that, even when the Libyans said it was a planned attack that took days to prepare, the White House and Obama refused to acknowledged that for days after it was already internationally known that the attacks had nothing to do with the film.

You can spin it any way you or the Democratic Party wants to spin it, but he did not say this was a terrorist attack nor did he say it was done by terrorists.

Dimitri

Elvis for you about the bomb attempt.

To put it simply:

There are enough voters out there who will believe the last thing they heard from a talking head on TV to influence the outcome of the election.
The Obama camp knows this & know they can get away with it too.
Remember: Most "swing" voters are such because they are incapable of making a decision on their own.
That's right - it's the thickies that get to decide who becomes POTUS.
Scary innit?

EngMike, my thoughts exactly. When the last presidential debate decided to use undecided voters as questioners for the debate, I started thinking about who these people are and how the questions will be raised. Undecided to me means that they have no affiliation with a party for one, they haven't been paying attention at all to the media or the news and they probably can't make up their minds about anything without a lawyer to sort things out for them. Why then are they a good choice for polls and such? I don't get it at all why they poll these people to see if they're swayed either way before during and after a debate. Is that all they're going on? The debates? They're a bunch of 'I don't cares' and typical of the liberal media's quest to contort an issue for the sake of sensationalizing it.

True the Obama camp, (notoriously socialist, combative and negative) has chosen their unsavoury way of manipulation, for outcome. If you have to trick the people to get your way, then your way is underhanded, unjust, maligned, perverted, and sick (to say the least) when people's lives are at stake and an entire country's path is at stake. Carnival hawkers like these should be confined to the carnival, shoveling elephant potty and applying tattoos to their needle marks.

Suzanne wrote:

Elvis for you about the bomb attempt.

thankyou Suz

Suzanne wrote:

EngMike, my thoughts exactly. When the last presidential debate decided to use undecided voters as questioners for the debate, I started thinking about who these people are and how the questions will be raised. Undecided to me means that they have no affiliation with a party for one, they haven't been paying attention at all to the media or the news and they probably can't make up their minds about anything without a lawyer to sort things out for them. Why then are they a good choice for polls and such? I don't get it at all why they poll these people to see if they're swayed either way before during and after a debate. Is that all they're going on? The debates? They're a bunch of 'I don't cares' and typical of the liberal media's quest to contort an issue for the sake of sensationalizing it. True the Obama camp, (notoriously socialist, combative and negative) has chosen their unsavoury way of manipulation, for outcome. If you have to trick the people to get your way, then your way is underhanded, unjust, maligned, perverted, and sick (to say the least) when people's lives are at stake and an entire country's path is at stake. Carnival hawkers like these should be confined to the carnival, shoveling elephant potty and applying tattoos to their needle marks.

Totally correct Suz, and it is these voters who will decide the outcome of the next election...they do not vote with their head...they do not put any thought into their vote...they are sheeple and vote according to the way the political parties and lobby groups steer them.

Years ago I read a study that showed that people's brains, when discussing politics, were active in the "emotional" region, NOT the "logical" region. Wish I'd kept that source. Look at the rabid rantings some Obama supporters are posting online.

twitchy.com/2012/10/17...tt-romney/

Yep, I sure want THOSE folks selecting my next president...

WOW...I really wonder though if the Secret Service will take any notice of these Twitter threats...personally, I doubt they will. The Democrats will laugh it off as a Republican tactic to discredit Obama (but secretly hoping it happens) and the Republicans will do the same saying it is a Democrat tactic to win the "black vote"